HIGHLA-L Digest - 21 Sep 2002 to 22 Sep 2002 (#2002-151)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:00:03 -0400
There are 5 messages totalling 286 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Well & truly a slash thing now (4)
2. Well & truly a slash thing now (was--We're Not Just ForFerrets....)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 09:19:40 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Nina wrote:
>OK--go ahead & see what you want to see. And that's really the thing, isn't
>it? I maintain there's a vast difference in what you see & what is truly
>there. NOT a matter of personal taste or perspective or insightfulness or
>broadmindedness. I just think the fact you SEE it doesn't mean it's there
>onscreen as much as it's in you
Ah, but what we see *will* be influenced by what's in us. Read ten
different reviews of the same film/book/play and you get ten
different opinions of what is there. The only way to know what
was *meant* to be there is to ask the author. But when it comes
to a film or TV show you have the person who pitched the story,
the person who wrote the script, the actors, the producers, the
director, the set decorator, etc. E.g. in The West Wing, in
the first season Toby kept on wearing his wedding ring because in
the actor's mind his wife was dead, and he played it that way.
Later his ex-wife shows up. When Aaron Sorkin realized Toby had
been wearing a wedding ring all along he wasn't too happy about
it. So, the creator intended one thing, the actor another, and
you have a bit of a problem. Or, what about Peter Wingfield
thinking the Quickening scene in Rev 6:8 was homoerotic? Is
that there, or not?
I maintain that what we get out of it is in us. I really don't care
(don't faint, now, Nina) about the slash aspect. I willingly admit
that I see slash because I want to. I don't *watch* the show for
that. I don't watch any show to see the slash. But if I'm feeling
in a slashy mood I might later see certain scenes and think they're
slashy. But I know they weren't intended that way.
>What is onscreen is a couple friends
>talking about a serious & uncomfortable subject & one then breaking the
>tension w/ a joke--anything else you added.
Sure.
>And, to me, if TPTB (writers, actors, etc.) didn't intend a same-sex vibe
>between characters/in scenes, then it isn't there.
Chris Carter didn't (at the beginning) intend for Mulder and Scully
to have a relationship, either. There was nothing there. But people
saw shipping almost from the start. I can also start yelling that
it wasn't there.
>And, of course, what goes on in your
>head is your business, & what you create from it & even share privately w/ a
>few appreciative friends is also your business. But, when you distribute
>slash fanfic worldwide & in perpetuity via the internet you make it
>EVERYONE's business.
How so? Websites don't go around announcing themselves. Zines don't
go around flapping at people yelling, "Read me! Read me!" If someone
wants to read slash, they will find some, be it via the Net, zines,
circuit libraries, whatever.
We can sit around forever discussing that. (I like it, and it's
fun. You're not allowed to. I don't care. Yadda.) I really would
like to hear people's opinions on how far one can take the
intention vs. what we see argument. They're rehearsing my (teeny
little) play now and the director keeps telling the actors, "It
means such-and-such", and I want to scream because it's not what
I intended. But I just keep quiet because, really, she asked if I
wanted to have directorial input and I said no. So what ends up
on that stage will not be what I intended at all, and I'll just
have to live with it. (Not to mention that I don't like the
lead actress...)
>But re: the
>central character's sexual orientation that's been pounded into viewers over
>6 seasons & in 118 eps as hetero & only hetero like DM's was--no, what they
>clearly intended rules.
I'm sure fans would have said that about Willow in the first three
seasons on Buffy, too. TPTB can change their minds. (I know, I'm
stretching it. I think I'll just stop now.)
>See--it's THEIR story--NOT OURS,
Yes, I agree with this. Which is why when fans get upset about
changes made or try to influence TPTB, it seldom works because
TPTB, in the end, have to do what *they* think will work for
the show, not what we want.
>In my
>opinion, fanfic writers take what doesn't belong to them & use it for their
>own purposes w/o TPTB's consent.
Can't really argue with this, I guess. The characters live on in
our hearts, whether TPTB have killed them, made them ascend, or
whatever. Some of us write that down; some don't. But to me the
importance is that they do live on within us, and TPTB have no
control over that.
>It's more obvious w/ slash writers in
>particular, because in most people's view they drastically change an
>important element of the HL fictional universe when they have DM drooling
>over Methos or begging Richie for a boink.
Yeah, us poor slash fans, the pariahs of the fanfic world. It's okay.
We're used to it. Most slash fans are used to keeping quiet about
their "secret passion" on gen/het lists. But I don't care; I like
slash. I will, however, concede most of your points, Nina.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 13:03:47 -0400
From: KLZ3 <KZIMMERMAN3@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now (was--We're Not Just ForFerrets....)
> And, to me, if TPTB (writers, actors, etc.) didn't intend a same-sex vibe
> between characters/in scenes, then it isn't there.
At what point does attributing something - whether inner
motivation or slashy urges or what "allegretto" really meant in
1815 - to a work (painting, poetry, prose, music, whatever) and
have it not be misinterpretation, but valid interpretation?
In music, it's possible to trace interpretation by modern
musicians back through student to teacher, sometimes to a student
of the composer and therefore to the composer himself. It's
possible to find where interpretation veers off in a different
direction, and ends up with several schools of thought on the
piece.
I got in a great deal of trouble in a course on Ireland when I
tried to do the same with James Joyce - determine from the prof.
what was the source of his interpretation and how did it track
back to notes or acquaintances of Joyce, and if he couldn't trace
it, how did he know what it meant?
Is HL art? OK. Won't go there. As Nina pointed out a few days
ago, many of us still think in terms of HL - finding locations,
mooning over the quay where the barge was docked when we go to
Paris,hearing Mary MacLeod's voice in Johnny Smith's mother,
etc. At what point does the insistence by the slash school of
thought that HL is populated by Canadians go from stubbornly
denying what TBTB intended, and turn into a branch of
interpretation of a work, even if the writers are still alive and
kicking?
~tooearlyinthedayforthinkingdeepthoughtsandmybrainisrustyanyway
kzimmerman3@cox.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:48:25 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
ZK wrote:
>At what point does the insistence by the slash school of
>thought that HL is populated by Canadians go from stubbornly
>denying what TBTB intended, and turn into a branch of
>interpretation of a work, even if the writers are still alive and
>kicking?
Which was my point to begin with. And I'm not just focusing on
slash here - at what point does *any* interpretation of a
work go from "not what the writers intended" to a valid point
of view?
My argument is that any and all interpretations are valid.
We can't know what goes on in the minds of the writers, and
we aren't always able to access interviews etc with them. In
some cases, the writers are long since dead; in others, the
audience might not have access to the Net or to magazines in
which the writers speak about their work. And so people come
up with their own ideas of what a work means, *based on the
source material alone*. Which I will say they have every
right to do, and shouldn't be discriminated against because
they don't have the Net, or a lot of money to buy magazines.
I very much doubt anybody is going to ask me what my play
means; they will come up with their own ideas of that. And
if someone by some miracle does actually speak to me about
it, I'm not going to disabuse them of the notion that their
interpretation is valid, even if it's not what I intended
at all.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:57:19 +0100
From: John Mosby <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
My stance:
If - rhetorically - Donna, Gillian, Dennis Berry, Adrian Paul and Peter Wingfield are (to various degrees)were involved in a scene and all of them say 'Huh? (Insert any aspect, slash or not here)...er...no that's not what this scene is about, you misunderstand!' then that's definitive proof that there is no underlying subtext intended and therefore there isn't any subtext apart from in the mind of the person watching.
Which is, in turn, perfectly fine! TV and cinematic stories are often a success because of the way they touch the audiences in ways that may not have been intended. A good book does the same. That's a bonus. Subtext is subjective.
Take from any series what you will and let it mean something personal to you. No better tribute to quality! But equally, don't complain if the original creator says that what you take from it IS personal to you and that technically you are taking something that wasn't there originally.
To misquote. Booty is in the eye of the beholder.
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:55:18 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
John wrote:
>Subtext is subjective.
>Take from any series what you will and let it mean something personal
>to you. No better tribute to quality! But equally, don't complain if
>the original creator says that what you take from it IS personal to
>you and that technically you are taking something that wasn't there
>originally.
And that's fine. I think that many shows succeed precisely because
they aren't one-note shows. HL is not just about "people living
forever, running around cutting each others' heads off with
swords". There are many, many more levels to it than that. With
most 'cult' shows one can say the same - Star Trek (TOS - there
can be only one), Sentinel, Professionals, Alien Nation, the
West Wing, whatever. They mean many different things at once, and
watching them is an experience, because each time one notices
something else. I think that's a good thing.
And I seldom even bother to find out what the original creator
says a work is supposed to be. I like to watch something first,
form my own opinion, and then see. Sometimes I am pleasantly
surprised to find that what I thought the creator intended was
actually the case; other times I'm pleasantly surprised to find
that it was something completely different - but then I have
another POV to think on, and it only makes the experience richer.
How boring it must be to watch something on one level only.
>To misquote. Booty is in the eye of the beholder.
*Snerk*
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 21 Sep 2002 to 22 Sep 2002 (#2002-151)
***************************************************************